FSX/P3D. And now... Elstree airfield EGTR. Somewhere, between London and Old Warden. Ground polygons of 3cm, 2cm and even 1cm per pixel. Fifth EU England airfield. Russ White is polishing this work before going through SAK Juneau airport. Russ also developed Stewart, Bela Coola etc...
Much more shots :
11 comments:
What a sorry state of affairs that airport is in, if the real one looks like that, it seems to be in an awful condition!
You guys missed this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vdC7jMjWMZA
The only thing that annoys me in those ORBX ads is that they are 'blown up'. 1cm/px is nothing new.
Almost every payware add-on will be having high resolution ground textures which are much better than 1cm/pixel. 1cm/pixel is good for surrounding terrain but quite blurry when you are close up.
Nice, but misleading.
Bullshit.
Clearly you have utterly no clue about relative texture resolution of FSX ground polys, and there has never been resolution of 1cm/pixel from any developer until now. This can easily be proven just by decompiling any FT or FSDT etc airport by looking at the DDS texture files and comparing them to Russ's last work, CYBD.
Yep, last time I looked no one came close to Russ's texture resolution in ground polys.
Orbx is a developer I trust. They always deliver exactly what it says on the box.
Perhaps you are another developer with scruples?
Russ just has someone buying nice textures for him to slap onto everthing. They look great but i'm bored of these farm airports.
Am I a FS developer? no. But a 3D designer, yes. I wont argue more with you as you wont seem to understand what texture mapping is. And you cannot understand final render resolution by looking at the DDS files. I ll just leave it here.
Russ' work is splendid, no doubt. What I said is smth totally different and totally valid.
I will ask better question - what for?
Sim720 makes crap. full stop.
"there has never been resolution of 1cm/pixel from any developer until now"
I am sorry, Sir, but that is not true, I can ensure you. Others just don't base their adverticement on that. I don't say this is wrong, I don't even care about that. Just for others to know - many payware airports (maybe not GA but those commercial) have their polygonal aprons/runway/taxiways etc. in this resolution. Sometimes you can even see tiny pieces of stones in asphalt textures! This is also a case if you take a look at buildings textures.
Resolution is simply not the most important part of the "quality" we are talking about. The most important part is colors, contrast, shadowing, dirt, trying to keep the same resolution in most airport objects etc. I don't say that this airport does not look amazing! But 1cm/pix is not what makes it looks so!
SD
Centimetre, Shemtametre, who cares? It looks absolutely brilliant and will be a day-1 purchase for me.
I don't understand the need for a lot of the negative comments on ADX, it's getting worse by the day and it does nothing but create a bad atmosphere.
Those bad comments are only regarding the advertisement techniques, not the airport itself which looks fabulous!
"1cm/pixel is good for surrounding terrain but quite blurry when you are close up.".... the FSX terrain system is only capable of displaying photoreal on "surrounding terrain" of 7cm/pixel (which is very high resolution for PR, but way less than the ground resolution on offer here). The only way you can achieve 1cm/pixel on ground textures is to have a custom poly covering the ground around the airport, so it's not possible to have 1cm/pixel on "surrounding terrain" i think you are confusing 1cm per pixel with 1 METER per pixel, which is a commonly used resolution for surrounding terrain photo real textures, but 100 times less crisp than some of the ground textures on offer here :)
Post a Comment
Comments are now deactivated. Please visit our new website: AirDailyX.net
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.